Matthew 18 Continued
In a previous post, I asked a question about church discipline and the authenticity of Matthew 18 as a teaching of Jesus. To which Lauren beautifully and graciously responded here. Talking to Jaime about this and then reading Lauren's response has brought up some important issues for me, that I'm really trying to address. So allow me to clarify:
I am not saying that there is no call for correction within the church. I do have a problem with the overly systematic approach that many have taken when trying to correct someone. Lauren rightly points out, "I'd guess that one reason you...are sensitive to this idea of 'accountability' within the church is that we've seen too many examples wherein this process has been applied abusively, without love or grace." This is certainly true, and(sadly) has been my experience in every church that I have been a part of. I'm saying this as someone who has taken part in the judgmental attitude that has driven people away. And this is part of what I'm reacting to: my guilt for having been in environments where people have been ostracized for everything from being angry at a parent to dating someone outside the church. Some people's misdeeds were truly serious and some were minutiae, but few, in my opinion, were really grounds for completely removing a person from their church community. (Because of these experiences I may be overcompensating).
Part of the problem I have with a systematic one-size-fits-all approach is that rarely, if ever, are situations so similar that a system can be applied. Systems also remove the greatest catalyst for reconciliation: relationships. Often these corrections take place outside of Christ centered relationships. People say--and, I believe, honestly think--that the hurtful things that are being said in the discipline are done out of love and based on relationships. However, I suspect, that if you ask the person being disciplined, they would say the relationship really isn't there and it doesn't feel like love. I would argue that if the person doesn't feel loved, there's a good reason: they're not being loved.
We all tend to get out of joint when corrected (it's not always great for one's ego). Relationships and love make correction tolerable and, ultimately, the blessing it is meant to be. That's why it's such a pity that so many people in the church take the cold approach. Sins are pointed out because they can be and for no other reason. Intimacy isn't taken into account. Before confronting someone we should all ask ourselves if we really have the "relationship capital" to do so. Have I loved this person? Have I put the in the work required of a close relationship? Are we really friends or just acquaintances? We should also ask ourselves if this is the right time to point out a sin. Is it really necessary to bring this up right now? Is it a life and death issue or is it something they should be allowed to see in their own time. Allowing people to work at their own pace is something a lot of leaders give lip service to and then quickly disregard. Faith is a process, an evolution of the soul. It's not instant and complete the moment a person begins to trust in God. We can't expect the same level of good deeds from all people.
Lauren also points out, "that with just the slightest shift in your interpretive grid, you might be able to see this as a teaching in reconciliation rather than ex-communication." To this I have to concede and will attempt to do later on (in a different post). What I don't want to do is simply remove a passage from the Bible simply because I don't like that it's been used in sinful ways due to bad interpretation. I'm finishing up John Shelby Spong's The Sins of Scripture, and he ultimately just rejects Bible passages because they have been used sinfully. I don't like it. I appreciate many of his conclusions, but I don't like his method. I prefer finding a way to look at the passage in a non-sexist, non-demeaning, non-whatever sort of way if possible (admittedly of late I have lost focus on that). I also think Christians need to acknowledge the humanity of the people who wrote, compiled and handed down the Bible we have today, and be willing to challenge at least the traditional interpretations that have been given.
Anyway, excommunication seems to me to be the opposite of Christ's teachings. At times people leave Jesus, and eventually he is abandoned completely, but it is never because he rejects them-- they reject him. I'm fine with letting people walk away, I'm not fine with pushing people out. If there is ever the threat of excommunication, it kills the encouragement to the best communication: confession. Why confess something if I'll just get harshly corrected or threatened with excommunication? Why be open and honest with where I am at if my walk with God will be constantly questioned? Why confess any deep-seated sin if my place within the community (that God intended to be the source of healing) is threatened? It seems to me the plain meaning of this passage is clear: a formula for excommunication. But I'm willing to reinterpret the passage positively if that is possible.
3 comments:
I think when any part of faith is forced it's the quickest way to destroy it. Formulas generally lead to laziness and lack of love because love is anything but formulaic.
A community of faith and faith itself is natural and organic, not rigid or forced. I've found unnatural constraints on people often create more sin than they heal. People go underground because they fear rejection vs. ridding themselves of sin out of faith. Any progression of lasting faith will happen because the individual wants to make the step not because someone else wants them to make it.
I think it all boils down to a control issue. Many churches abuse their control. Many leaders are well-meaning but can't give over their control to God. Faith can't be externally controlled or grown unnaturally and too many people just don't understand that.
I think we should all be very thoughtful and cautious when following verses about church procedure. Jesus doesn't define the sin in the passage. He leaves it up to us to figure out when these steps should be taken. Maybe that gives us too much credit.:)
Any action should be taken in love and unfortunately a lot of people wouldn't know love if it bit them.
I, too think Lauren's response was well said. And Ben, I think you are right on when you say those who can legitimately offer correction are those with whom a relationship is already established. "Wounds of a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses."(Prov. 27:6) - kinda makes you wonder about anonymous blog critiques, hmm - also it was useful what you said about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But I don't think the system (or formula, as Jaime said) is the abuse. In fact I think that Jesus gave a system to restrain sinful responses. The abuse you experienced, I think, is actually a rare type. Much more prevalent is to pretend sin isn't there. Recently my church excommunicated a man (only time in the seven years I've been there) who was well-loved and repected, a deacon. Our elders certainly would have been tempted to ignore the sin, but the "system" forced them to act. (His excommunication did not mean he was barred from the church or fellowship, just taking communion) Contrary to your assertion, repentence was not killed, but because of the love and support of the church, he did repent and was restored.
The system worked here because it was applied with wisdom and love. Any system applied woodenly will almost always be applied wrongly.
I can't comment on your specific illustration, but denying communion to a Christian is, to me, very dangerous. I would hope that the person's sin was of the severity of the man sleeping with his father's wife ala 1 Cor 5.
Post a Comment